LDS and a Catholic

[SteveVH]

Others have suggested the same thing so I can at least ask if possible. Oh and thanks about the sig line. I kinda like it myself. :)

Pam, YOU DID IT! THANK YOU!!! Now if I knew how to give you an official "Thank You" you would have it. Maybe you can enlighten me on why the forum keeps score on how many times we have given and received thanks or receive or given an lol. And how do I do this? I've said thank you in many posts but I guess it isn't official.

Thank you for all your help.

[SteveVH]

I'm about to get ready for work, but I thought I'd briefly comment.

Actually, anatess did not comment on whether what we are discussing makes the LDS Church true (she specifically stated that "We are not arguing which is true doctrine or not."), so I do not see circular reasoning here at all. We aren't saying that if something wasn't true it would not have been restored.

Instead, in this thread, what we are arguing is that many if not most unique LDS beliefs are found in ancient Judaism and Christianity, in contrast to the claim that "uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Christian history, including Jewish history". Such an argument does not necessitate saying that therefore makes the LDS Church the Lord's Church, and none of us are making that argument (even though we of course believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's Church). Instead, we are commenting on an historical issue, and showing that unique LDS doctrines are quite clearly found in early Christian and Jewish histories, well before the 1800s.

Whether or not something is a heresy of course depends on the perspective taken. Jews would of course find the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity as heretical, as well as the Christian belief that God came to this earth and incarnated. The other sides would clearly disagree that these beliefs are heretical.

Have a good day!

I see what you're saying. But if I choose to believe in a golden calf and use the Jewish people's worship of the golden calf as evidence of something they once believed that I am now restoring, it doesn't get me too far down the road as far as truth is concerned.

[SteveVH]

This is from Howard Schwartz's "Tree of Souls: the mythology of Judaism"...

Jason, there is a lot to comment on in the referenced post and it would take hours and pages to adequately do so. Generally I will say that interpretation of poetic language such as that found in the Psalms is not as easy as just giving a literal meaning. I would say that the Psalm references are showing God's superiority. But I am also coming from the position that God does not need nor ask the approval or consensus of anyone in order to carry out whatever He decides to carry out. So I would not be looking for the same meaning in those passages as a Mormon might. The references in Genesis could just as well be interpreted as the Trinity "let us make man in our image and likeness".

[Guest]

I see what you're saying. But if I choose to believe in a golden calf and use the Jewish people's worship of the golden calf as evidence of something they once believed that I am now restoring, it doesn't get me too far down the road as far as truth is concerned.

Hiya Steve! I'm not going to comment on the circular reasoning thing anymore because Jason did an excellent job of answering it for me - completely and accurately.

As for the above post... You are absolutely, completely, 100% correct! And I'm glad you think this way. Completely. It is highly commendable!

That's the thing about gospel truths - there is no way, at this point in time, that you can prove which is true and which isn't. Even the simplest doctrine of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. How do you know? I mean - sure, you can prove he existed, born in Bethlehem and was crucified and died on Calvary. But, being the Son of God? You can't really apply scientific methods for proof of that claim. It is the same for the entire set of scriptures.

The method every single person has to apply to determine truth is as unique and individual as the prints on your thumb. But, there's a general guideline... search, ponder, and pray. Diligently, and honestly, and act accordingly.

I would be very disappointed if you just take what I say as true when your conscience and your entire being do not see it as such. And I would also be just as disappointed if you deny the truth of what I say when your conscience and your entire being see the pearl of truth in it.

Therefore, I always say on these here forums - debating doctrine is not going to get us closer to God. Because, I can argue FOR or AGAINST something like, the Great Apostasy. And I can argue both sides with complete validity. I can take a line/lines of scripture and see it both in a Catholic perspective and in an LDS perspective - with complete validity. I can take the Eucharist, the Trinity, etc. etc. and argue FOR or AGAINST it with complete validity. But, it is a waste of effort because none of that is going to get me closer to God. It is the same thing I said to Jason and the same thing I'm going to say to you. Because, that is not how to determine truth.

How you determine truth is to learn through the Holy Spirit with honesty and diligence, giving yourself up completely to God and opening yourself up to His will. Do not be afraid to take anything you find contrary to what you already know and bringing it up to God. Whatever answer you find is the answer for you.

If after such searching and pondering and praying, the Spirit tells you that it is not true - then that is the journey that God has planned for you.

Line upon line, precept upon precept, God will guide you to the path to Him. Every journey is unique to each person seeking for truth. If that path happens to be through the Catholic Church - then that is where you need to be. And that's the main reason why I find the grains of truth in every religion - or lack thereof - seeking out the similarities. Because, it will be very arrogant and dishonest for me to say that the Holy Spirit that guided you to your current path as you diligently seek the truth is wrong.

Hope this makes sense.

Edited March 11, 2011 by anatess

[SteveVH]

Hiya Steve! I'm not going to comment on the circular reasoning thing anymore because Jason did an excellent job of answering it for me - completely and accurately.

As for the above post... You are absolutely, completely, 100% correct! And I'm glad you think this way. Completely. It is highly commendable!

That's the thing about gospel truths - there is no way, at this point in time, that you can prove which is true and which isn't. Even the simplest doctrine of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. How do you know? I mean - sure, you can prove he existed, born in Bethlehem and was crucified and died on Calvary. But, being the Son of God? You can't really apply scientific methods for proof of that claim. It is the same for the entire set of scriptures.

The method every single person has to apply to determine truth is as unique and individual as the prints on your thumb. But, there's a general guideline... search, ponder, and pray. Diligently, and honestly, and act accordingly.

I would be very disappointed if you just take what I say as true when your conscience and your entire being do not see it as such. And I would also be just as disappointed if you deny the truth of what I say when your conscience and your entire being see the pearl of truth in it.

Therefore, I always say on these here forums - debating doctrine is not going to get us closer to God. Because, I can argue FOR or AGAINST something like, the Great Apostasy. And I can argue both sides with complete validity. I can take a line/lines of scripture and see it both in a Catholic perspective and in an LDS perspective - with complete validity. I can take the Eucharist, the Trinity, etc. etc. and argue FOR or AGAINST it with complete validity. But, it is a waste of effort because none of that is going to get me closer to God. It is the same thing I said to Jason and the same thing I'm going to say to you. Because, that is not how to determine truth.

How you determine truth is to learn through the Holy Spirit with honesty and diligence, giving yourself up completely to God and opening yourself up to His will. Do not be afraid to take anything you find contrary to what you already know and bringing it up to God. Whatever answer you find is the answer for you.

If after such searching and pondering and praying, the Spirit tells you that it is not true - then that is the journey that God has planned for you.

Line upon line, precept upon precept, God will guide you to the path to Him. Every journey is unique to each person seeking for truth. If that path happens to be through the Catholic Church - then that is where you need to be. And that's the main reason why I find the grains of truth in every religion - or lack thereof - seeking out the similarities. Because, it will be very arrogant and dishonest for me to say that the Holy Spirit that guided you to your current path as you diligently seek the truth is wrong.

Hope this makes sense.

Thanks for your post, anatess. There is much with which I agree, in fact I agree with most of what you said. Of course, I would agree that there is nothing more important than praying, which includes, most importantly, listening to the voice of God.

Having said that, I approach Scripture from the standpoint of starting at zero; no assumptions, no preconceived notions (as much as possible, anyway). I then read the Gospels concerning the life of this man called Jesus. Do the authors seem trustworthy in their writing? Could they have had a hidden agenda? I find the the authors credible. So what did this man Jesus claim and what did he do to back up his claim? He, according to the witnesses, who I believe to be credible, spoke as no other man has spoken and performed many miracles, things beyond what any mere human could do. In speaking to the Jews concerning a paralytic, he said "Is it easier to say 'your sins have been forgiven' or to say 'stand up, take your mat and walk'"? Only God can forgive sins, as the Jews said, but he backed up his claim with evidence that he truly was God. So, I have read about what he said and what he did and I believe that he must either be who he said he was, or he was insane or he was a complete liar. He does not speak as someone insane, nor do his words and actions make him out to be a liar. So I decide that I do believe that he was who he said he was, the Son of God, and therefore believe all that he said and did.

God gave us the gift of reason. Using reason, I can come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God, and God Himself. The voice of God, then, through the Holy Spirit, confirms this truth deep within my soul. I discern the voice of the Holy Spirit through a spiritual process to make sure that I am hearing the voice of God and not my own wishes and desires, or, God forbid, the voice of the enemy. My certainty of faith, then, comes from all of these things.

God bless.

Edited March 11, 2011 by SteveVH

[Guest]

Thanks for your post, anatess. There is much with which I agree, in fact I agree with most of what you said. Of course, I would agree that there is nothing more important than praying, which includes, most importantly, listening to the voice of God.

Having said that, I approach Scripture from the standpoint of starting at zero; no assumptions, no preconceived notions (as much as possible, anyway). I then read the Gospels concerning the life of this man called Jesus. Do the authors seem trustworthy in their writing? Could they have had a hidden agenda? I find the the authors credible. So what did this man Jesus claim and what did he do to back up his claim? He, according to the witnesses, who I believe to be credible, spoke as no other man has spoken and performed many miracles, things beyond what any mere human could do. In speaking to the Jews concerning a paralytic, he said "Is it easier to say 'your sins have been forgiven' or to say 'stand up, take your mat and walk'"? Only God can forgive sins, as the Jews said, but he backed up his claim with evidence that he truly was God. So, I have read about what he said and what he did and I believe that he must either be who he said he was, or he was insane or he was a complete liar. He does not speak as someone insane, nor do his words and actions make him out to be a liar. So I decide that I do believe that he was who he said he was, the Son of God, and therefore believe all that he said and did.

God gave us the gift of reason. Using reason, I can come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God, and God Himself. The voice of God, then, through the Holy Spirit, confirms this truth deep within my soul. I discern the voice of the Holy Spirit through a spiritual process to make sure that I am hearing the voice of God and not my own wishes and desires, or, God forbid, the voice of the enemy. My certainty of faith, then, comes from all of these things.

God bless.

Great post, Steve! Yes, this is your own way of processing things (which is also similar to my own way of processing things and I suspect is also true for Jason). Unfortunately, our conclusions are not the same... and this is where our differences start to surface. Because, why, if we are both doing the exact same thing Jesus Christ told us to do, are we given different answers? It becomes a "my Spirit is better than your Spirit" argument which is pointless.

So, my own personal way of dealing with these things is that - I give everybody the benefit of the doubt - LDS, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists... etc - that as long as all of them are diligent in searching for truth, then "my Spirit is the same as their Spirit". And that any differences in the answers is attributed to God's infinite knowledge - that He alone knows what each of us need to get closer to Him. So that, what they believe is true to them, and that's all that matters to me.

Therefore, I follow Christ's admonition to Spread the Word of God, not by insisting that what I believe is true, but only to encourage that each person seek the truth diligently... and if they are led to ask on what I believe is true - then I would be glad to enlighten them... and if they debate me and tell me I'm wrong and sometimes to the point of telling me I'm ignorant and stupid... then I just have to believe that they are doing so in the interest of what they hold sacred, following their own conscience in the best of their abilities.

Peace.

Edited March 11, 2011 by anatess

[SteveVH]

Great post, Steve! Yes, this is your own way of processing things (which is also similar to my own way of processing things and I suspect is also true for Jason). Unfortunately, our conclusions are not the same... and this is where our differences start to surface. Because, why, if we are both doing the exact same thing Jesus Christ told us to do, are we given different answers? It becomes a "my Spirit is better than your Spirit" argument which is pointless.

So, my own personal way of dealing with these things is that - I give everybody the benefit of the doubt - LDS, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists... etc - that as long as all of them are diligent in searching for truth, then "my Spirit is the same as their Spirit". And that any differences in the answers is attributed to God's infinite knowledge - that He alone knows what each of us need to get closer to Him. So that, what they believe is true to them, and that's all that matters to me.

Therefore, I follow Christ's admonition to Spread the Word of God, not by insisting that what I believe is true, but only to encourage that each person seek the truth diligently... and if they are led to ask on what I believe is true - then I would be glad to enlighten them... and if they debate me and tell me I'm wrong and sometimes to the point of telling me I'm ignorant and stupid... then I just have to believe that they are doing so in the interest of what they hold sacred, following their own conscience in the best of their abilities.

Peace.

Anatess, we agree on so many things. Only God can read our hearts and He loves those who seek Him sincerely. You bring up an important point however. If we believe that the Holy Spirit speaks truth to us, how then is it that we are not identical in our beliefs? This is an important, if sensitive, issue. To often we are intent in proving our positions on these forums rather than seeking truth.

One of my favorite Catholic Saints is Joseph of Cupertino. This man lived in the late 13th century and most likely was mentally retarded, or at least had a very low I.Q. His mother begged the Franciscan monks to take him in as she knew he could never make it on his own in the world. Reluctantly, because of her persistence, they accepted him. He fumbled just about every job they gave him. One day, he was told to take a cart full of apples, pulled by a donkey, into town and sell them. As he was heading into town he found a young woman lying in the brush who was naked, beaten and raped. He took off his tunic, wrapped it around her and took her to the local doctor. He gave the doctor the money he had earned. When he returned, the donkey with the cart of apples was gone; stolen. He walked back to the monastery in his underwear, without the donkey and cart, and without a penny to show for it. The monks now knew for sure that he could not be trusted with the simplest of jobs. After that he was relegated to working in the stables and taking care of the sheep. The monks found him levitating in a state of ecstasy and misinterpreted this as a sign that he was possessed. They tied him down and brought in an exorcist. This kept happening until they were convinced that this was of God.

My point in telling you part of his story is that he, while having little intellect, understood the Gospel better than those with sharp minds, but dull hearts. He was the good Samaritan and put flesh on the words of the Gospel by living it. God is not going to ask us how many books we read or how many debates we won. He is going to as us how much we loved, especially the poorest among us. That is what is important. Did we live the Gospel? Did we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless? Did we love those around us and give them a glimpse of the God who loves them.

I am a Secular Franciscan, which is a Franciscan order for lay people. I was professed into this order in June 1994. One of my favorite sayings of St. Francis is "Preach the Gospel to all the world, if necessary, use words".

As far as bringing some unity between our faiths, I believe we can find unity in living the Gospel together and bringing the love of God to the world.

God bless you anatess.

Edited March 12, 2011 by SteveVH

[believer]

This is interesting to me. I know Prop 8 was a joint effort between our churches. Mormon's seemed to do the heavy lifting and the Catholic church was alright with the LDS taking credit for the victory.

But 74% of Catholics are pro gay marriage or civil unions. Though the leadership of our churches may be in line on this. I'm not sure the people are. Are the LDS allowed personal stances on social issues?

Catholics are guided by the leading of the spirit and change accordingly, the church leaders act as a moral guides. I believe LDS change comes instantaneously through revelation to the prophet like when the curse was lifted from african americans. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Overall I've noticed the Catholic church keenly aware or even sometimes threatened by the LDS. So I was surprised to learn of this pact.

Given that one church is very old and the other very new I think they are very similar.

Personally, The Eucharist and Baptisms seem the biggest differentiators as far as sunday service goes. But both have each so that is also a similarity.

[todd520]

I'm not sure what you mean by "allowed personal stances on social issues?"

If Catholics don't believe the teachings of their church, then I question if they really understand those teachings. With a weak understanding of the teachings, it's easy to disagree with them. In LDS we are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin.

I'm intrigued that you make a distinct difference between Catholic laity and the Church, saying layity are lead by the spirit and change aocordingly. What is the CAtholic Church led by? I think leadership in both LDS and Catholic churches claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit

[believer]

I'm not sure what you mean by "allowed personal stances on social issues?"

I see how that sounds as you quote it.

The original post was about similarities between our churches and mentioned how both churches were against gay marriage. But the Catholic people are pro gay marriage and civil unions. The Vatican is not. Catholics are taught to believe and fight for "social justice" so this has created an interesting dynamic. I was just stating that I'm not sure if your church works like that. Catholic means "everyone" and the church was formed a long time ago to bring all Christians together under one Roman Catholic umbrella. They haven't been able to keep everyone happy the whole time, hence the reformation.

In the case of Gay marriage the leaders of the Catholic church turned to the leaders of the Mormon church for funding for Prop 8 because Catholics themselves wouldn't fill the baskets for such a cause.

So on the gay issue the similarities are only with our leaders.

[todd520]

Yes, it can feel right and good to support gay marriage, especially outside a religous context. The Catholics who support it do so with the best of intentions.

I see two problems

- historically, people have hated the sinner. Catholics are right to acknowledge the injustice of this hate, but may be confused in their response

- many Catholics no longer see the same sex act, or sex outside of marriage as a sin. This is where they depart from the Vatican and LDS postion

As an ex-catholic I would say the LDS put significant effort into educating the flock on their beliefs and teachings. This will lead to more unity on controversal topics such as this